Bina Kumari v. Ircon International Ltd. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2008RSA/2483/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, wife of a deceased employee, challenged orders dismissing her suit and appeal for compassionate appointment and Voluntary Retirement benefits. The court held that existing pensionary benefits and terminal grants precluded entitlement to compassionate appointment, while VR benefits were forfeited due to death before processing. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no compassionate appointment or Voluntary Retirement benefits granted.

Bina Kumari Vs Ircon International… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

RSA No.2483 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

RSA No.2483 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.12.2008

¶5

Bina Kumari .....Appellant Vs.

¶6

IRCON International Ltd. and another

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr.J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶12

The appellant challenges judgements and decrees dated 29.9.2007 and 19.2.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ambala Cantt. and the Additional District Judge, Ambala dismissing her suit, as also her appeal.

¶13

The appellant's husband died in harness on 2.1.2004. She thereafter filed an application for compassionate appointment and in the alternative prayed that her husband's application for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme be accepted and monetary benefits be granted accordingly. The respondents opposed this prayer by asserting that as her husband was working as a Khalasi, on adhoc basis she could not be granted compassionate appointment. The respondents also pointed out that they had spent Rs.10.15 lacs on his treatment from July 1999 to 2.1.2004 and after he passed away, had paid gratuity, anticipatory gratuity, provident fund, GSLI, employees linked insurance, funeral expenses etc., to the appellant. In addition, it was stated that pensionary benefits were being

¶14

¶15

RSA No.2483 of 2008

¶16

paid to the appellant and minor children from January 2004 under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. As regards the application for Voluntary Retirement, it was asserted that as the appellant's husband passed away before the application could be considered or processed, she would not be entitled to any benefits.

¶17

The trial Court, after considering the merits of the controversy, dismissed the suit by upholding the contentions put forth by the respondents. In appeal, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court.

¶18

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to compassionate appointment, as after her husband passed away, she and her children have been rendered destitute. It is further submitted that benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme should have been granted as on her husband's death, his application for voluntary retirement was pending consideration.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgements.

¶20

After the demise of her husband, the appellant has received terminal benefits in the shape of gratuity, provident fund, GSLI, employees linked insurance, funeral expenses etc. and in addition she and her children are receiving pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The argument advanced by counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no means to support her family is, therefore, belied by the amount received by her as terminal benefits and in view of the pension that she is drawing. It would also be necessary to mention here that no rules or regulations exist or have been referred to, as would oblige the respondents to consider the

¶21

¶22

RSA No.2483 of 2008

¶23

appellant's case for compassionate appointment. The appellant has received terminal benefits as detailed here-in-before and, therefore, even if there were a scheme for compassionate appointment, she would not be qualified for such an appointment. The application for the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was rightly declined, as her husband passed away before the application could be considered and/or processed.

¶24

In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned judgements and decrees do not call for interference, the appeal is dismissed.

¶25

11.12.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE

Bina Kumari v. Ircon International Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bina Kumari v. Ircon International Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bant Singh Vs Ishar Singh

Punjab State and Ors. Vs Vinod Guliani

Dr. Bal Mukund Shastri Vs Gaur Brahman Vidya Parcharni Sabha & Anr.

Gian Singh & Ors. Vs Joginder Singh

P.S.E.B. and Ors. Vs Gopi Ram

P.R.T.C. Vs Gian Chand